SHREE RAM METAL AND ENGINEERING v. Court of Karnataka
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) (ii) ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Com.O.S.No.432/2025 stands quashed. (iii) The written statement so filed by petitioner/defendant shall be taken on…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19253 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHREE RAM METAL AND ENGINEERING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.29, RADHE KRISHNA BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, OFFICE NO.18, 4TH KUMBHARWADA, MUMBAI-400 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SUNIL BHIMARAM/PROPRIETOR (NOT REGISTERED) (BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Location: High Court of Karnataka APEX LUMINARIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.716, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. AJAY GUPTA. REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (BY SRI. SAGAR R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEEPAK BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, COMMERCIAL COURT (CCH-83) IN COM. OS NO.432 OF 2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24528 WP No. 19253 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.06.2025 passed in Com.O.S.No.432/2025, whereby the concerned Court rejects the plea of the petitioner/defendant to file its written statement on the score that there is no permission sought for filing of the written statement.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.
A suit is instituted by the respondent/plaintiff in Com.O.S.No.432/2025. On 21.03.2025, summons were served upon the petitioner/defendant, after which, the next date listed for filing of the written statement was 19.06.2025. The petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement on the said day. Notwithstanding the same being filed prior to the expiry of 120 days as is necessary in law, the concerned Court has rejected the written statement so sought to be filed on
19.06.2025. The order of the concerned Court, on the face of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24528 WP No. 19253 of 2025 HC-KAR it, is erroneous as the time limit of 120 days for filing the written statement was not yet over. Let alone, the suit itself is not 120 days old. In that light, the order of the concerned Court suffers from patent illegality and non-application of mind.
For the aforesaid reasons and on this short ground, the petition deserves to be succeeded.
Operative part
Hence, the following order is passed: (i) (ii) ORDER The petition is allowed. The order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Com.O.S.No.432/2025 stands quashed. (iii) The written statement so filed by petitioner/defendant shall be taken on record and the concerned Court shall regulate its procedure thereafter. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.